Internet Freedom in Democrat, Republican Platforms Is a Good Start

President Obama met young voters on their own turf recently as he fielded online questions in an open, "ask me anything" Reddit forum. The event, which drew two million people to the social news site and crashed servers, illustrates the Internet's potential not just as a two-way communication medium, but as a way to change the relationship between the government and those they govern.

The tremendous power of the Internet as a means for political communications is just one reason I was greatly relieved to see measures that would curtail freedom of expression like SOPA put on indefinite hold in Congress and measures like fair use and safe harbors on the table for negotiations in the 21st century trade agreement -- Trans-Pacific Partnership, under negotiation in Leesburg, Va., this week.

Another key step towards recognizing the value of Internet openness was seen when both the Republicans and Democrats added Internet freedom provisions to their party platforms.

Both parties support the current multistakeholder approach to Internet governance and promise that they will oppose efforts by some countries to impose more government control over the Internet.

While they agree on this international issue, the party platforms differ on government involvement in cybersecurity and privacy with the Republicans slating these as issues for the private sector. The Republicans, however, do trumpet an all too often forgotten area of privacy -- how governments treat private, electronic information. That's often even more critical as citizens often don't have a choice about information they share with government or with electronic information the government takes action to obtain. In the Republican platform, personal data gets "full constitutional protection from government overreach."

The Democratic platform also says that using federal funds to increase Internet access in rural and underserved areas can create jobs opportunities and boost the economy. The Obama administration so far has invested $7.2 billion in stimulus money to expand Internet access mostly to anchor institutions likes schools and hospitals in rural areas, coming under criticism from fiscal conservatives.

While neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney's acceptance speech mentioned the goal of Internet freedom, Obama did renew his commitment to math and science education, asking for support to recruit 100,000 math and science teachers over the next 10 years, sounding much like President Clinton's program to put 100,000 additional police on the streets.

Aside from keeping the tech economy growing by fueling it with new, qualified, talent, there are few budget items on the tech industry's agenda. The tech industry is proud to be such a bright spot in this recovering economy, and there are encouraging signs the country is going in the right direction with more broadband deployment and a renewed commitment to balanced intellectual property policy and Internet freedom.

At first glance this news story about letting a baby dance to a Prince song on YouTube, as this Economist article highlights, is different and will no doubt appear in a different news category than Internet blackouts in Egypt, but the principle behind both issues is similar.

Whether the issue of the day is copyright infringement or open Internet access, censorship or a trade agreement, what the U.S. and the rest of the world could most use is an Internet freedom platform on which to base their daily policy challenges. These seemingly separate issues are united, or should be united, by common principles that support Internet freedom.

As countries that support free speech face a range of threats to Internet freedom from Internet restricting countries as well as those with good intentions who want to restrict the Internet to combat social ills, having a written document stating common principles and practices to maintain the open Internet could only help.

 

Follow Edward J. Black on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ccianet

Comments

[Wayne Caswell]

06:21 PM on 09/13/2012

To ensure Internet Freedom and regain world leadership, we need a MUCH stronger broadband policy. Congress should define broadband as a critical utility that is either highly regulated or publicly owned. Telecom companies should be forced to decide what business they are in -- infrastructure or services. They should NOT be allowed to leverage their control of infrastructure to also dominate services like TV, phone, energy management, and security & health monitoring. And policy makers should understand that the billions invested in telecom infrastructure so far largely came from public funds, in the form of government fees added to monthly phone bills. But do they, and will they? Arguably, those are OUR cables that the telecoms are using, since the networks were built with our money.

[Wayne Caswell]

06:18 PM on 09/13/2012

What Congress should do and will do are two different things. Republicans in Congress and state legislatures have blocked efforts to address the problem that Bruce describes, since they know that the lack of broadband disproportionately effects the poor, the elderly, and minorities who are more likely to vote democratic. At least 18 states already have laws prohibiting or severely limiting the rights of communities to install their own municipal fiber networks with public funds, even when big telecom companies refuse to offer the service themselves. The lack of competition and affordable access is a direct result of telecom lobbyists intent on maintaining their monopoly power and using it to also dominate application services.